Ocala mayor: Council should drop new saggy pants ordinance

In this July 17, 2014 file photo, Kenny Mills, owner of Get It Done Car Wash in Ocala, washes a customer's car. Mayor Kent Guinn wants the City Council to reconsider an ordinance criminalizing saggy pants.

Published: Thursday, July 31, 2014 at 1:39 p.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, July 31, 2014 at 1:39 p.m.

Even though he signed it, Ocala Mayor Kent Guinn wants the City Council to drop its saggy pants ordinance.

"I'm just not in favor of it," Guinn said Thursday. "I just don't think it's the business of government to tell people how they should dress."

In a television broadcast on Wednesday evening, Guinn said he mistakenly signed the ordinance that he opposes.

He said the saggy pants ordinance was included in a stack of ordinances brought to him for signature.

"So, I signed every one of them," Guinn said. "I think we are making something out of nothing here about my signing it."

The Council voted 4-0 on July 15 to approve an ordinance that prohibits anyone on city property from wearing his or her pants two inches below the natural waist in a way that exposes underwear or bare buttocks. Violators could face a fine of up to $500 and 60 days in jail. Council President John McLeod was absent from that meeting.

The mayor has 10 days after the council adopts an ordinance to veto it. But he did not veto it. He signed it. If there is no mayoral veto or signature, the ordinance would go into effect 10 days after adoption.

Asked if he reads what he signs, Guinn said he does but he did not read every page of this ordinance because he already read it on the council's July 15 agenda.

He said he did not veto the ordinance because the council passed it 4-0 and the council can override a mayoral veto by a four-fifths vote.

Guinn said he would ask the council to reconsider the ordinance. He said he would not be present at the Aug. 5 council meeting but would be at the Aug. 19 meeting. A council member must bring the matter up for reconsideration.

Councilwoman Mary Rich, who proposed the ordinance, said she would not change her mind.

"I guess he is listening to people that don't like it. By the same token, I am listening to people that like it," Rich said. "We need to try it before we knock it."

Rich, who is African-American, said there has been criticism that the ordinance would profile young black males. But she said it is not exclusively black males who wear saggy pants.

She said as far as black males are concerned, they should pull their pants up and then get a job and "stop drug dealing and shooting each other." She said the young black men should say they are "too good for that and leave that alone and get me a job and be a real black man."

Councilman Jay Musleh said he did not know if he would reconsider the ordinance.

"I have so much on it for both sides. A lot of people applaud me for standing up," Musleh said.

But he said others have pointed out flaws in the ordinance.

He said it would be up to the mayor to bring it to council for reconsideration.

"I don't see how you mistakenly sign something," Musleh said about the mayor. "He needs to be clear on what he wants to do. If he brings it up at another council meeting, we will have some discussion. People act like it's the only thing we are doing right now, which was not true."

Councilmen Brent Malever said he would reconsider the ordinance.

"I don't think we went into it deep enough in the meeting and what would happen with it," Malever said. "I think we made a snap judgment at that point."

Asked if he was sorry he voted for the ordinance, Malever said, "I am sorry I did. Sometimes you have second thoughts about what you should have said or came forward with. I just didn't do it. I sat there and listened. I thought I was getting it all. It's bothered me ever since. I didn't go deep enough and ask the right questions."

He said he did not consider what other cities have had similar ordinances that have been thrown out of court. He said he does not think the city needs attorney expenses to fight an ordinance.

Councilman Jim Hilty said if the mayor asked him to bring the ordinance back for consideration, he would. He said he "might" reconsider the ordinance.

"I'd have to give it a little thought," Hilty said.

He said he thought a $500 fine and jail was too severe a penalty when compared to a $138 fine for someone who drives a vehicle through a red light.

But he also said people should not have to be subjected to looking at saggy pants. He said when he brings his grandchildren to an event downtown, they should not have to see sagging pants.

"Let them express themselves at other places, not at a public event," Hilty said. "Everybody else has rights, too. We are trying to find a happy medium."

McLeod, who was absent for the vote, said he agrees with the ordinance "in principle."

"I don't know if I would have voted for it," he said. "I don't like droopy drawers any more than anybody else but, at some point, I am struggling with that being a little too much. That's where I am coming from."

<p>Even though he signed it, Ocala Mayor Kent Guinn wants the City Council to drop its saggy pants ordinance.</p><p>"I'm just not in favor of it," Guinn said Thursday. "I just don't think it's the business of government to tell people how they should dress."</p><p>In a television broadcast on Wednesday evening, Guinn said he mistakenly signed the ordinance that he opposes.</p><p>He said the saggy pants ordinance was included in a stack of ordinances brought to him for signature.</p><p>"So, I signed every one of them," Guinn said. "I think we are making something out of nothing here about my signing it."</p><p>The Council voted 4-0 on July 15 to approve an ordinance that prohibits anyone on city property from wearing his or her pants two inches below the natural waist in a way that exposes underwear or bare buttocks. Violators could face a fine of up to $500 and 60 days in jail. Council President John McLeod was absent from that meeting.</p><p>The mayor has 10 days after the council adopts an ordinance to veto it. But he did not veto it. He signed it. If there is no mayoral veto or signature, the ordinance would go into effect 10 days after adoption.</p><p>Asked if he reads what he signs, Guinn said he does but he did not read every page of this ordinance because he already read it on the council's July 15 agenda.</p><p>He said he did not veto the ordinance because the council passed it 4-0 and the council can override a mayoral veto by a four-fifths vote.</p><p>Guinn said he would ask the council to reconsider the ordinance. He said he would not be present at the Aug. 5 council meeting but would be at the Aug. 19 meeting. A council member must bring the matter up for reconsideration.</p><p>Councilwoman Mary Rich, who proposed the ordinance, said she would not change her mind.</p><p>"I guess he is listening to people that don't like it. By the same token, I am listening to people that like it," Rich said. "We need to try it before we knock it."</p><p>Rich, who is African-American, said there has been criticism that the ordinance would profile young black males. But she said it is not exclusively black males who wear saggy pants.</p><p>She said as far as black males are concerned, they should pull their pants up and then get a job and "stop drug dealing and shooting each other." She said the young black men should say they are "too good for that and leave that alone and get me a job and be a real black man."</p><p>Councilman Jay Musleh said he did not know if he would reconsider the ordinance.</p><p>"I have so much on it for both sides. A lot of people applaud me for standing up," Musleh said.</p><p>But he said others have pointed out flaws in the ordinance.</p><p>He said it would be up to the mayor to bring it to council for reconsideration.</p><p>"I don't see how you mistakenly sign something," Musleh said about the mayor. "He needs to be clear on what he wants to do. If he brings it up at another council meeting, we will have some discussion. People act like it's the only thing we are doing right now, which was not true."</p><p>Councilmen Brent Malever said he would reconsider the ordinance.</p><p>"I don't think we went into it deep enough in the meeting and what would happen with it," Malever said. "I think we made a snap judgment at that point."</p><p>Asked if he was sorry he voted for the ordinance, Malever said, "I am sorry I did. Sometimes you have second thoughts about what you should have said or came forward with. I just didn't do it. I sat there and listened. I thought I was getting it all. It's bothered me ever since. I didn't go deep enough and ask the right questions."</p><p>He said he did not consider what other cities have had similar ordinances that have been thrown out of court. He said he does not think the city needs attorney expenses to fight an ordinance.</p><p>Councilman Jim Hilty said if the mayor asked him to bring the ordinance back for consideration, he would. He said he "might" reconsider the ordinance.</p><p>"I'd have to give it a little thought," Hilty said.</p><p>He said he thought a $500 fine and jail was too severe a penalty when compared to a $138 fine for someone who drives a vehicle through a red light.</p><p>But he also said people should not have to be subjected to looking at saggy pants. He said when he brings his grandchildren to an event downtown, they should not have to see sagging pants.</p><p>"Let them express themselves at other places, not at a public event," Hilty said. "Everybody else has rights, too. We are trying to find a happy medium."</p><p>McLeod, who was absent for the vote, said he agrees with the ordinance "in principle."</p><p>"I don't know if I would have voted for it," he said. "I don't like droopy drawers any more than anybody else but, at some point, I am struggling with that being a little too much. That's where I am coming from."</p><p><i>Contact Susan Latham Carr at 867-4156 or susan.carr@starbanner.com.</i></p>